Atheism ends today

[Enki]

To be correct you will have had to have solved a moral problem hence my argument for a moral realism which works like, but isn't, mathematical realism.

Correct only according to my own thoughts and feelings. If my brain ceases to function then the whole notion of my correctness disappears, whereas if I believe I am correct in thinking that the moon is a satellite of the earth, then it will remain so whatever happens to me.

But is that feeling morally right or wrong? I have evolved a feeling that an ingrowing toe is giving me gip. There is definitely something wrong going on in my socks

As far as I am concerned my moral attitude relates to human attitudes and actions, not to ingrowing toe nails.

 

Your thoughts might not be inherently right either.

Indeed they might not. That is why I am always willing to listen to other points of view.

 

I'm sorry but by talking about your correctness you have allowed for a moral reality independent of the brain......as mathematical reality is independent from the brain

I disagree. It is my brain which decides what I regard as something having moral qualities or not. I see no evidence whatever for any outside agency involved.

How can your brain be a human construct? I grant that the brain computes mathematical and moral problems but statements like these do not even begin to tell us what is right and what is wrong morally.

I never said it was. I said that I see morality as a human construct. as I made clear in the last sentence of post 139.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Correct only according to my own thoughts and feelings. If my brain ceases to function then the whole notion of my correctness disappears, whereas if I believe I am correct in thinking that the moon is a satellite of the earth, then it will remain so whatever happens to me.

I'm afraid your explanation here tells us little about the basis and sense that you think you are correct. Moral problems don't cease just because you are not there, other people have them and people have them collectively and the same moral problem essentially.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

 
I disagree. It is my brain which decides what I regard as something having moral qualities or not. I see no evidence whatever for any outside agency involved.

Naive. I am sure your morality was influenced by your upbringing and the law of the land which are external agencies.
Also it is your Brain that solves maths problems.

[Enki]

Naive. I am sure your morality was influenced by your upbringing and the law of the land which are external agencies.
Also it is your Brain that solves maths problems.

I have already mentioned such outside influences in the last paragraph of Post 141 so I (obviously wrongly) assumed that those would have been taken as read. So, is that what you meant by 'a moral reality independent of the brain', because that is what I was responding to?

[Enki]

I'm afraid your explanation here tells us little about the basis and sense that you think you are correct. Moral problems don't cease just because you are not there, other people have them and people have them collectively and the same moral problem essentially.

Except that, as I have already said, I suggest that if there were no human beings there would be no such thing as morality at all. I suggest that The fact that (in very general terms) people are confronted with similar moral problems can be explained in evolutionary terms(i.e. murder is a threat to the health of a society).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I have already mentioned such outside influences in the last paragraph of Post 141 so I (obviously wrongly) assumed that those would have been taken as read. So, is that what you meant by 'a moral reality independent of the brain', because that is what I was responding to?

Once again ''My evolved brain's making me do it'' is not a real answer to why you are morally right when you are and why your are morally wrong when you are. You are presenting moral correctness as brain fart IMV. In other words, if someone thinks the opposite are they not also correct?.....So in your system morality cancels itself. And if it cancels itself you and everyone else is just making it up as you go along.

The statement I am morally correct necessitates that a moral problem involving that which is external to your brain has been solved correctly. Which is why the only satisfactory solution to morality imv is moral realism along the lines of mathematical realism and a moral homeostasis.

These are insurmountable issues, If i'm wrong.....surmount them.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Then all you need do now, Vlad, is produce some non-empirical evidence (which sounds like an oxymoron) for 'God' that has no "attendant problems".

Since your approach is avowedly empiricist the only problem is convincing a hard boiled empiricist that he is making circular argument.

What you seem to be saying is that we can only rely on empirical evidence since non empirical evidence is an oxymoron apparently. ...Where Jeremy, is the empirical evidence for philosophical empiricism? That I would move is a far huger problem for your philosophy than any problems I might have. It is empirical evidence for philosophical empiricism which is contradictory here.

Your basis of criticism can only ever be a belief which immediately undercuts itself.

[Gordon]

Since your approach is avowedly empiricist the only problem is convincing a hard boiled empiricist that he is making circular argument.

What you seem to be saying is that we can only rely on empirical evidence since non empirical evidence is an oxymoron apparently. ...Where Jeremy, is the empirical evidence for philosophical empiricism? That I would move is a far huger problem for your philosophy than any problems I might have. It is empirical evidence for philosophical empiricism which is contradictory here.

Your basis of criticism can only ever be a belief which immediately undercuts itself.

But I'm not making an argument, Vlad: do keep up.

 I was simply asking you, given your disdain for empiricism, what non-empirical evidence is available for 'God' and what "attendant problems" such evidence might have.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

 I was simply asking you, given your disdain for empiricism,

Not sure it's disdain but even if I did, It's not relevent to the fact that the lack of empirical evidence for the philosophy of it means it undercuts itself.

what non-empirical evidence is available for 'God' and what "attendant problems" such evidence might have.

I would say the ubiquity of a divine 'one' in many domains of study, the power of the arguments for God, the unsatisfactory nature of arguments against particularly the idea embodied by empiricism, and of course Goddodging which in my experience, the observation of which starts with self observation and realisation.  The only attendant problem is how do you reach people who don't want to know.

I think you will see that the attendant problems of empiricism mean I can relax in my own philosophy. The Empiricist is not afforded that luxury. Indeed a lot of what he believes comes under the ambit of empiricism. Doesn't.

[jeremyp]

Yes Jeremy, but this is inevitably dependent on one's definition of evidence which for you people is inevitably philosophically empiricist with all the attendant problems that has.

Can you give an example of evidence that is not empirical?

[jeremyp]

Where Jeremy, is the empirical evidence for philosophical empiricism?

The evidence is that it works. Empiricism has led to an enormous increase in our understanding of the World.

[Gordon]

Not sure it's disdain but even if I did, It's not relevent to the fact that the lack of empirical evidence for the philosophy of it means it undercuts itself.I would say the ubiquity of a divine 'one' in many domains of study, the power of the arguments for God, the unsatisfactory nature of arguments against particularly the idea embodied by empiricism, and of course Goddodging which in my experience, the observation of which starts with self observation and realisation.  The only attendant problem is how do you reach people who don't want to know.

I think you will see that the attendant problems of empiricism mean I can relax in my own philosophy. The Empiricist is not afforded that luxury. Indeed a lot of what he believes comes under the ambit of empiricism. Doesn't.

I suspect you're kite-flying again, Vlad.

P.S. I sorted the quotes in your recent post (as quoted).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Can you give an example of evidence that is not empirical?

I already have done in my previous post.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The evidence is that it works. Empiricism has led to an enormous increase in our understanding of the World.

Methodological ''empiricism'' works......but not well enough to establish philosophical empiricism.
Empiricism should by your reckoning have produced an empirically measureable increase in empirical measureable understanding. I look forward to seeing this information.

The only explanation you cannot see or express the circularity of empiricism is......you don't want to.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I suspect you're kite-flying again, Vlad.

P.S. I sorted the quotes in your recent post (as quoted).

The more this phrase ''Kite flying'' is used the less I'm sure I understand what you mean by it.

[Gordon]

The more this phrase ''Kite flying'' is used the less I'm sure I understand what you mean by it.

Put bluntly - the phrase, as used by me, describes the actions of someone who posts any old shite just to see what reaction they get (and in your case posts repetitions of previously posted old shite).

Hope that clears matters up for you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Put bluntly - the phrase, as used by me, describes the actions of someone who posts any old shite just to see what reaction they get (and in your case posts repetitions of previously posted old shite).

Hope that clears matters up for you.

It clears up loads Gordon.

[Enki]

Once again ''My evolved brain's making me do it'' is not a real answer to why you are morally right when you are and why your are morally wrong when you are.

Yes, but it is an answer to why any moral position I might hold or any moral decision I might take feels right, and that, for me, is a starting point for analysing that position.

 

You are presenting moral correctness as brain fart IMV. In other words, if someone thinks the opposite are they not also correct?.....So in your system morality cancels itself. And if it cancels itself you and everyone else is just making it up as you go along.

The statement I am morally correct necessitates that a moral problem involving that which is external to your brain has been solved correctly. Which is why the only satisfactory solution to morality imv is moral realism along the lines of mathematical realism and a moral homeostasis.

These are insurmountable issues, If i'm wrong.....surmount them.

If I have to make a moral decision then I simply try to make the correct one for me. Another person might make a different decision which is nonetheless correct for them. So, 'morally right' is in the eye of the beholder, and whatever becomes the majority 'morally right' usually reflects itself in the laws of democratic societies, and these are subject to change as the majority's views of moral rightness changes of course.

As far as I know, no source for an objective morality has ever  been found.  If there is, I would be genuinely willing to listen to any methodology which might establish this. Our sense of morality(leaving aside for now the proto-morality of other species) seems to exist only in the human mind. And that suggests that morality is basically a subjective experience.


I don't find that insurmountable at all.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, but it is an answer to why any moral position I might hold or any moral decision I might take feels right, and that, for me, is a starting point for analysing that position.

 
If I have to make a moral decision then I simply try to make the correct one for me. Another person might make a different decision which is nonetheless correct for them. So, 'morally right' is in the eye of the beholder, and whatever becomes the majority 'morally right' usually reflects itself in the laws of democratic societies, and these are subject to change as the majority's views of moral rightness changes of course.

As far as I know, no source for an objective morality has ever  been found.  If there is, I would be genuinely willing to listen to any methodology which might establish this. Our sense of morality(leaving aside for now the proto-morality of other species) seems to exist only in the human mind. And that suggests that morality is basically a subjective experience.


I don't find that insurmountable at all.

Well you would have to demonstrate that last statement at least to dispel what looks like you a)not being really interested about how you arrive at a decision that is, as you put it morally correct b) show that somebody who holds a separate point of view is invalid morally in that view.

No source of mathematical realism has been found. It just operates Moral irrealism doesn't work because there is no arbitration within it to say what is right and what isn't and with such a basic and obvious flaw surely one has to start looking elsewhere. Beyond that, if morality is just a question of opposing but equal values the value difference is zero and the value of morality is zero and when one criticises other's moral decisions one is play acting. That you're not playacting points, IMV, to a subconscious assent of moral realism.

[Enki]

Well you would have to demonstrate that last statement at least to dispel what looks like you a)not being really interested about how you arrive at a decision that is, as you put it morally correct b) show that somebody who holds a separate point of view is invalid morally in that view.

For myself,  ideally, when I say  something is wrong, my first reaction is of something which offends my nature. The wrongness I feel might take the form of disapproval, disgust, abhorrence, even fear, depending upon the situation. I then try to assess the wrongness of the situation according to my values,( which may well have their origin in my culture and my upbringing). in as rational a way as possible(e.g. by trying to ascertain as many facts regarding the situation as possible or by  trying to consider in as level headed a way as possible  the points of view of others.)  The result of all this is something which I would call my moral opinion which I see as correct for me. Because I don't see morality as something written in stone, I see it as quite possible for a person to hold an alternative moral opinion which they regard as the correct one for them. If you take that as not being interested so be it, but I certainly don't see it that way.

No source of mathematical realism has been found. It just operates Moral irrealism doesn't work because there is no arbitration within it to say what is right and what isn't and with such a basic and obvious flaw surely one has to start looking elsewhere. Beyond that, if morality is just a question of opposing but equal values the value difference is zero and the value of morality is zero and when one criticises other's moral decisions one is play acting. That you're not playacting points, IMV, to a subconscious assent of moral realism.

I really don't see any pertinent linkage between morality and mathematics. One is very much dependent on and associated with feelings and opinions, the other on logic. One is ephemeral in that moral attitudes can change and disappear as people die, the other is based upon such things as equations and formulae which remain as intrinsic in their own right after people die.

The arbitration, as you call it, comes from the collective agreement of a society, which changes and shifts as that society changes, often as a result of one group trying to influence another group in order to change their moral stance. If this were not so then we would expect morality to remain the same thoughout history. This is not so.

I have an opinion that same sex marriage is as acceptable as heterosexual  marriage. I would hope that this is a universal opinion.
I have an opinion that assisted suicide should be enshrined in law. I would hope that this is a universal opinion.
I have an opinion that stem cells from human embryos should be used in medical research. I would hope that this is a universal opinion.

The fact that I would wish my opinions to be universal is not some sort of evidence for saying either that they are universal or that they are objective. It is only evidence that they are my opinions.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I really don't see any pertinent linkage between morality and mathematics. One is very much dependent on and associated with feelings and opinions,

I put it to you that this is not as true as you think morality is about acting in a wider context than one's feelings in other words in an objective context e.g evolved biology, consequence of action, the feelings of others external, the wellbeing of others etc, alteration of the environment, moral realism, morality as a reaction to external factors

  the other on logic.

which is not dependent on empiricism but on abstraction

One is ephemeral in that moral attitudes can change and disappear as people die, the other is based upon such things as equations and formulae which remain as intrinsic in their own right after people die.

Moral problems do not die with people and are not ephemeral. Moral equations exist.

Also just because moral behaviour persists or is common doesn't make it right or that moral behaviour that disappears is necessarily wrong behaviour or that it wont return.

[jeremyp]

Methodological ''empiricism'' works......but not well enough to establish philosophical empiricism.

Who gives a fuck?

Empiricism should by your reckoning have produced an empirically measureable increase in empirical measureable understanding. I look forward to seeing this information.

The only explanation you cannot see or express the circularity of empiricism is......you don't want to.

Empiricism works. What more do you need? Look at the computer on which you are reading this post: a product of empiricism. Look at the pandemic. See what empiricism has done compared to "other ways of knowing".

Empiricism: vaccines, other treatments, ventilators, tests, quarantining, genome mapping of variants

Prayer: fuck all.

And to top it off, Christians prayed for an end to atheism. Empirically, we can determine there are still atheists. Prayer doesn't work, which implies your god doesn't exist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Who gives a fuck?

considering it is at the bottom of this argument you are involved in and that most of the assertions about it spring from yourself then er, you I suppose.

Empiricism works.

If you are rolling philosophical and methodological empiricism together, I would argue it very doesn't

What more do you need?

I've told you.....a methodological empiricist basis for philosophical empiricism

Look at the computer on which you are reading this post:a product of empiricism. Look at the pandemic. See what empiricism has done compared to "other ways of knowing".

Empiricism yields the numbers and the processes ''Other ways of knowing'' sanctions research and vaccine deployment. Morality based on the abstract for instance., political expediency etc,etc,etc

Empiricism: vaccines, other treatments, ventilators, tests, quarantining, genome mapping of variants

Prayer: fuck all.

Prayer is a way to greater things, to God without whom empiricism would not be possible.

And to top it off, Christians prayed for an end to atheism.

Oh, here we go again

Empirically, we can determine there are still atheists. Prayer doesn't work, which implies your god doesn't exist.

Oh, down to ''implies'' now

[jeremyp]

considering it is at the bottom of this argument you are involved in and that most of the assertions about it spring from yourself then er, you I suppose.

No. I don't give a flying fuck about your pseudo philosophy drivel.

If you are rolling philosophical and methodological empiricism together

Empiricism works. Look at the sum of human knowledge about the World. It all comes from empirical methods. None of it coes from your metaphysical wankery.

''Other ways of knowing'' sanctions research and vaccine deployment.

Nope. We assess the efficacy of vaccines by empirical methods. We assess the dangers of vaccines by empirical methods.

If the benefits outweigh the dangers, we say "yes, let's give the vaccine to people".

Prayer is a way to greater things,

Like an end to atheism? That didn't work, did it.

to God without whom empiricism would not be possible.

We have empiricism but there's no evidence that this god of yours even exists. How can you even begin to justify your stupid assertion?

[ProfessorDavey]

Prayer is a way to greater things, ...

What, like death, as the evangelicals who thought prayer would protect them from the virus might have said ... as they died.